Minutes for the Tgk October2004 Session

Minutes for the Tgk October2004 Session

October 2004doc.: IEEE802.11-04/1200r4

IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs

Minutes for the TGk October2004 Session

Date:October 19, 2004

Author:

Steve Emeott
Motorola, Inc.
1301 E. Algonquin Rd.

Schaumburg, IL 60196
Phone: 847-576-8268
Fax: 847-576-3240
e-Mail:

Minutes for the TGk October 2004 Session

Date: October 20-21, 2004

Author:

Floyd Simpson
Motorola, Inc.
8000 W Sunrise Blvd, Plantation, FL33322

Phone: 954-723-5269
e-Mail:

Minutes for the TGk October 2004 Session

Date: October 22, 2004

Author:

Bob O'Hara
Airespace, Inc.
110 Nortech Pkwy, San Jose, CA95134

Phone: 408-635-2025
e-Mail:

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

8:45AM – 12:30PM

  1. Chair calls the conference to order at8:45AM
  2. Attendance
  3. Review IEEE 802 & 802.11 Policies and Rules
  4. Patent Policy
  5. Inappropriate Topics
  6. Documentation – 4 hour rule for changes that are normative
  7. Voting
  8. Roberts Rules
  9. Objectives for Meeting 04-1193r0
  10. LB71 Technical Comment Resolution
  11. Comment Incorporation into new draft (D2.0)
  12. Go to second letter ballot –San Antonio Meeting
  13. Proposed Agenda
  14. Security, RCPI, Periodic, Parallel (10/19)
  15. Noise, TPC, QoS, Media sense, MIB (10/20)
  16. Hidden, Beacon, neighbor, STA (10/21)
  17. PICS, Prepare Motions for San Antonio (10/22)
  18. Technical Comment Resolution
  19. Next major milestone: Second Letter Ballot
  20. Categorization and Assignment of Technical Comments

Email was sent to the reflector with all comments and their categories

  1. Security (Paine)
  2. RCPI (Black/Kwak)
  3. Periodic (Kwak)
  4. Parallel (Black)
  5. Noise (Soomro)
  6. TPC (Klein)
  7. QoS (Kwak)
  8. Medsense (Soomro)
  9. MIB (Gray)
  10. Hidden (Black)
  11. Beacon (Emeott)
  12. Neighbor (O'Hara)
  13. STA (O'Hara)
  14. Security – All
  15. PICS (Black)
  1. Meeting in recess at 8:55 to work on comment resolutions.
  2. Chair brings the meeting back into session at 9:47 PM from recess
  3. Chair called for presentations, and hearing none…
  4. Meeting in recess at 9:48 to work on comment resolutions until 11:45
  5. Chair brings the meeting back into session at 11:49 PM from recess
  6. Paul grey provided inputs on MIB
  7. Ready to review Security comments today
  8. Ready to review RCPI comments today, document 04/1141r0
  9. Is there any objection to following presentation format in 04/1193r1
  10. Hearing none, we will start with document 04/1141r0, looking at the subcategory simple error
  11. Addressing comment 935
  12. We have no idea when we get a measurement what antenna is being used
  13. We do have notion of diversity antennas, but it is not consistent throughout
  14. Comment, in the proposed resolution, what does the term current antenna mean
  15. Change resolution to “at the output of the currently in use receiving antenna connector”.
  16. No objection to accepting resolution to comment 935 in 04/1196r0so the resolution is accepted
  17. Addressing comment 375 and 492, no objection to accepting comments 375 and 492 in 04/1196r0so the resolution is accepted
  18. Addressing comment 555, no objection to accepting resolution to 555 in 04/1196r0 so the resolution is accepted
  19. Addressing comment 627, no objection to accepting resolution to 627in 04/1196r0 so the resolution is accepted
  20. Addressing comment 197, no objection to accepting resolution to 197 in 04/1196r0 so the resolution is accepted
  21. Addressing comment 215, no objection to accepting resolution to 215 in 04/1196r0 so the resolution is accepted
  22. Reviewing comment 563
  23. Comment that resolution is not a complete sentence
  24. Sentence completed to indicate that if multiple measurements are obtained, the last is reported
  25. Is there any objection to accepting the resolution to comment 563 in document 04/1196r0, hearing none the resolution is accepted.
  26. Addressing comment 180, no objection to accepting resolution to 180 in 04/1196r0 so the resolution is accepted
  27. Meeting in recess at 12:30

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

1:30 PM – 6:00PM

  1. Chair calls meeting back into session at 1:55 PM
  2. Addressing comment 183
  3. Is there any objection to accepting the resolution to comment 183 in document 04/1196r0, hearing none the resolution is accepted.
  4. Addressing comment 203
  5. Is there any objection to accepting the resolution to comment 203 in document 04/1196r0, hearing none the resolution is accepted.
  6. Addressing comment 207
  7. Is there any objection to accepting the resolution to comment 207 in document 04/1196r0, hearing none the resolution is accepted.
  8. Addressing comment 216
  9. Is there any objection to accepting the resolution to comment 216 in document 04/1196r0, hearing none the resolution is accepted.
  10. Addressing comment 231
  11. Is there any objection to accepting the resolution to comment 231 in document 04/1196r0, hearing none the resolution is accepted.
  12. Addressing comment 21
  13. RCPI of the probe request as measured by the responding STA
  14. Where is RCPI defined, it is defined in three places
  15. It would be more clear to refer to the RCPI measurement for the applicable PHY
  16. Is there any objection to accepting the resolution to comment 21 in document 04/1196r0, hearing none the resolution is accepted.
  17. Addressing comment 448
  18. Is there any objection to accepting the resolution to comment 448 in document 04/1196r0, hearing none the resolution is accepted.
  19. Addressing comment 636
  20. Is there any objection to accepting the resolution to comment 636 in document 04/1196r0, hearing none the resolution is accepted.
  21. Addressing comment 783
  22. Is there any objection to accepting the resolution to comment 783 in document 04/1196r0, hearing none the resolution is accepted.
  23. Next on the agenda are the security comments out of 04/0964r13
  24. Chair stepped down, handed the chair over to Bernard Aboba
  25. Addressing comment 601
  26. If someone is acking something you do not hear, whether security is in use is irrelevant
  27. The commenter was not specific about what interactions might occur
  28. Addressing comment 670
  29. Can not reject this comment on the same grounds
  30. Is this saying that for each report, we should describe the specific security properties
  31. Comment was more specific than that
  32. Comment: If a rogue AP gets on the neighbor report, how would a STA know
  33. The text describes how an AP should not allow a rogue AP into the list
  34. Once a rogue AP gets in, STA is not protected
  35. However, clause 7.3.2.26 does state that only legitimate APs should be included in the neighbor report
  36. Addressing comment 679, recommend accepting suggested remedy
  37. Addressing comment 717
  38. Change reachable to Pre-Auth, change RNS to security procedures, otherwise accept suggested remedy
  39. However, making this change involves more than a global search and replace
  40. In general, if for some reason Pre-Auth will not work, set this bit to not reachable
  41. Bit would say you do not want to roam to neighbor at all
  42. If you are saying something is not reachable, then you are saying STA must switch submit
  43. Subnet is an AP layer concept, we tried to signal this information but did not succeed
  44. Problem you will get into is people will say what does this mean and when should I set it
  45. Could respond back that comment is OK, but text must be supplied to indicate what security policies mean
  46. Alternate proposal, change RSN to security and RSN bit to security bit. And then we will need to edit the text to get things in there correctly
  47. how about adding text to the reachability to indicate that upper layer service interruption is what needs to be avoided
  48. RSN refers to a specific 802.11i IE, whereas it would be nice to generalize the definition to refer to any robust security network profile
  49. Addressing comment 718
  50. Addressing comment 741
  51. Note that the TGr scope does not include scanning issues preceding the transition
  52. Meeting in recess at 3:20 until 3:40
  53. Chair calls the meeting into order at 1542
  54. 898 Accepted
  55. 912 Accepted as part of comment 717
  56. 932 – Same as 848
  57. 930 – Same as 848
  58. 945 – Same as 848
  59. 1014 – Same as 679
  60. 1020 – Same as 718
  61. Chair back to Paine from Bernard
  62. MIB from Paul Gray
  63. Paul had gone through the MIB comments and marked some as accepted
  64. He had also created a Word document to give instruction to the editor
  65. 11k cross checked the comments with the Word document and marked the comments as cross checked.
  66. Meeting recessed at 1730 to reconvene at 8am on Wed, 10/20/04

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

8:10 AM – 12:30 PM

  1. Chair calls the conference to order at 8:10 AM
  2. Attendance
  3. 6, including the TG chair
  4. The chair reviewed the activities from the Oct 19th session
  5. Agenda Created for Today
  6. Periodic (Kwak)
  7. Neighbor (O’Hara)
  8. STA (O’Hara)
  9. Qos (Kwak & Qi)
  10. Parrallel (Black)
  11. Any objections to accepting the agenda as posed?
  12. Hearing none, the agenda is approved.
  13. Kwak on Resolutions to Periodic Comments
  14. Comment 64: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  15. Comment 86: extensive discussion of the proposed resolution. Group discussed, but did not resolve outstanding issues that the proposed text does not address, but feels the proposed text is an improvement nevertheless. Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  16. Comment 120: A revised figure showing measurement interval is created. Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  17. Comment 121: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  18. Comment 122: Resolution to comment 120 addresses this one also. Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  19. Comment 132: Moved to ‘Beacon Report’ category.
  20. Comment 376: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  21. Comment 384: Kwak thinks this bit is useful to allow partial measurements to be reported. He feels that this comment will have to be discussed and decided on at the Nov Plenary meeting.
  22. Comment 400: resolved by resolutiuon to comment 475. Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  23. Comment 440: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  24. Comment 441: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  25. Comment 442: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  26. Comment 447: Duplicate of 441. Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  27. Comment 450: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  28. Comment 451: Accepted with alternate resolution of comment #441. Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  29. Comment 452: Partially accepted, cannot remove Measurement Interval, but accepted comment to use Tus for time. Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  30. Comment 453: same resolution as for #475. Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  31. Comment 464: It is not specified in the draft how the STA will respond to measurement requests, for instance, bulk reports. According to Joe, the draft does not currently specify this behavior. Could do a ‘delayed reporting’ bit in the measurement request frame.
  32. 25 Minute break until 10:30am
  33. Meeting back in session at 10:30am. Kwak continues with Periodic Comments
  34. Comment 464 (contd): More work needed. Steve Emeott to provide proposal
  35. Comment 486: Need vote on 04/1010. Can’t resolved it here. There was plenty of discussions at the last meeting. According to Joe you can already send autonomous probe responses, only need the optional field for setting the period of the probe-response. Propose to bring the proposal to the Nov plenary for a vote.
  36. Comment 467: We should accept the comment. Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  37. Comment 470: Needs more work to revise the paragraph. Joe has taken this as an action item to have something for next meeting.
  38. Comment 474: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  39. Comment 475: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  40. Comment 477: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  41. Comment 479: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  42. Comment 921: This is an open comment. Needs TG discussion.
  43. Comment 994: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  44. Comment 997: The comment is accepted. Kwak to provide a figure for Hysteris.
  45. Next on the agenda is the Neighbor Report comments by O’Hara
  46. Are the resolutions from the Berlin meeting in the spreadsheet? No
  47. O’Hara’s own spreadsheet with proposed resolutions somehow got the ID (i.e., comment #) corrupted relative to the original one. So how do we proceed to match the comments back to the original? O’Hara is proceeding by commenter’s name instead of comment # and then look for the corresponding comment in the original file.
  48. Comments awaiting Simon Blacks commitment to provide submission for MLME interface are being skipped.
  49. Comment 5: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  50. Comment 35: left open for wider TG discussion
  51. Comment 89: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  52. Comment 160: Skipped as contentious and need wider TG discussion
  53. Comment 161: Skipped as contentious and need wider TG discussion
  54. Comment 162: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  55. Comment 163: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  56. Comment 164: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  57. Comment 167: There is a TBD for proposed text for this comment. Kwak has volunteered to provide normative text. Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  58. Comment 168: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  59. Comment 169: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  1. Meeting in recess for lunch until 1:30pm
  2. Meeting called back to order at 1:44pm
  3. Neighbor Report Comment Resolutions (contd)
  4. Comment 169 (contd): Emily Qi to prepare normative text for the comment. Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  5. Comment 170: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  6. Comment 171: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  7. Comment 239: group drafted new definition of neighbor AP to emphasize that neighbors APs are intended for applications such as voice that need seamless service continuity. Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  8. Comment 243: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  9. Comments 239, 246, 248 , 253 , 254 , 255 are also resolved by the resolution adopted for comment 243
  10. Comment 258: Skipped as it needs wider TG discussion.
  11. Comment 286: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  12. Comment 368: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  13. 15 Minute break.
  14. Meeting resumed at 3:36pm
  15. Comment 662: Deferred pending presentation in San Antonio of TBTT Offset simplification. Same for all comments related to TBTT offset.
  16. Comment 663: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  17. Comment 665: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  18. Comment 666: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  19. Comment 668: comment declined as not measurement related.
  20. Comment 678: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  21. Comment 677: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  22. Comment 674: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  23. Comment 675: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  24. Comment 681: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  25. Comment 682: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  26. Comment 684: declined. It was resolved by resolution adopted for comment 666. Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  27. Comment 687: declined as it was resolved by the resolution adopted for comment 666. Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  28. Meeting adjourned for today at 5:47pm

Thursday, October 21, 2004

8:10 AM – 5:45 PM

  1. Chair calls the conference to order at 8:10 AM
  2. Attendance
  3. 6, including the TG chair (5 attendees started the meeting. 1 attendee arrived at 11am)
  4. The chair reviewed the activities from the Oct 20th session and ask for any concerns from the previous session. None were raised
  5. Agenda Created for Today
  6. Misc (Emeott)
  7. Hidden (Black)
  8. Parallel (Black)
  9. PICS (Black)
  10. Neighbor (O’Hara)
  11. QoS & Measurement (Kwak & Qi)
  12. TPC (Klein)
  13. STA (O’Hara)
  14. Any objections to accepting the agenda as posed?
  15. Hearing none, the agenda is approved.
  16. Emeott on Proposed Resolutions to Misc Comments. See Misc comments in doc 11-05-0964
  17. Comment 288: Propose to decline it. Any objections to decline for the reason shown? Hearing none, it is declined.
  18. Comment 293: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  19. Comment 313: Group decided that the editor should fill in order numbers later with temporary ones as they will be in constant flux while the draft is in development. Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  20. Comment 314: Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  21. Comment 315:Essentially the same comment as comment 314, therefore use the same resolution as for comment 314. Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  22. Comment 323: Propose to decline it. Any objections to decline for the reason shown? Hearing none, it is declined.
  23. Comment 328: Propose to decline it since the text in the draft is seems to be clear to most everyone else. Any objections to decline for the reason shown? Hearing none, it is declined.
  24. Comment 329: Propose to decline it. Any objections to decline for the reason shown? Hearing none, it is declined.
  25. Comment 330: Group decided that the editor should fill in order numbers later with temporary ones as they will be in constant flux while the draft is in development. Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  26. Comment 340: Propose alternate resolution. Any objection to accepting the alternate resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  27. Comment 341: Propose to decline it. Any objections to decline for the reason shown? Hearing none, it is declined.
  28. Comment 344: Propose to accept. Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  29. Comment 342: Same resolution as comment 344. Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  30. Comments 352, 353, 355, 356 are essentially the same comment. All accepted. Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  31. Comment 374: Refer to comment 442. Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  32. Comment 648: Defer for wider TG discussion as they may be controversial or require more inputs from others.
  33. Comment 776: Group believes that doc 1095r0 addresses this comment. Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  34. Comment 778: It seems that the commenter referenced the wrong clause.
  35. Comment 779: Propose to accept. Any objection to accepting the resolution shown? None, therefore accepted.
  36. Comment 780: We assumed the comment is referring to 7.3.2.22.10.
Top View